W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: i59

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:03:11 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g2jr60$kkn$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
 
> This copies RFC2817's reg. procedure into P2, Section 5 ("Status Code 
> and Reason Phrase"), and updates the IANA Considerations and the 
> Change Log accordingly.

RFC 2817 says "SHOULD be subject to review in the form of a standards
track document within the IETF Applications Area.  Any such document
SHOULD be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates'
to the Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1".

I've problems with 2119 key words in IANA considerations.  What is a
good enough excuse to violate these SHOULDs, and how can IANA decide
that it really is good enough ?  

Why on earth does RFC 2817 talk about a specific IETF area ?  What is
"review in the form of a standards track document" supposed to mean ?
As *any* standards track document or BCP always has IETF review I try
to figure out what this says, does it try to rule out BCP ?  What is
wrong with say experimental IETF RFC registrations ?  

Let's try to translate the obsolete RFC 2234 language to new RFC 5226
terms, e.g., "IETF review" + "RFC required" *OR* "standards action".

Please post the new "IANA considerations" as text/plain when you have
them, I'm not sure what the XML diff in the tracker really means.

 Frank
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 18:02:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:48 GMT